Anyone else genuinely prefer CG mecha to practical in movies and TV?

I don't really like CG since they usually lack a sense of realism. Recently though, there's some quite convincing CG in films where they try to mimic practical effects. Examples are like Rogue One (Starships are made to look like old 80s models) and Shin Godzilla (his tail moves as if it was dangling from wires)

"Practical" does and has always looked like shit.

>>15442940
I do, models have a limit, CG is always getting better.

fags

You're going to get the best results out of mixing CG and practical. Practical has the undeniable advantage of the actors being able to physically interact with the object or character, but CG allows for much more fluid movement and more ambitious designs.

At the least, there should be a physical prop for any part of the mecha that the characters are going to touch. The rest being CG is no problem at all, as long as sufficient care is paid towards making it look convincing.

>>15443025
That's probably because Shin Godzilla wasn't CGI

CG should be used to hide or enhance things, not to replace real props.

All robots in movies should be actual physical robots full of moving parts, programmed to do whatever animation is necessary for the scene, held up and moved around by a wires or a big robotic arm that will later be removed with the power of CG.

Only middle aged nostalgiafags honestly prefer """practical"""

For the most part, yeah. It took awhile now, but it's getting more convincing when it's front and center. But the best CGI work has been the takeover of scene dressing. Lighting correction, backdrops, vistas and touch-ups have gotten very good at a lot of budget levels. Renders of already artificial things too. I had held out for practical effects in my heart for a long time but masterful practical effects and costuming haven't gone away. It's definitely a shame in a lot of specific examples to see bad CGI application (or just bad CGI), but the application has shifted to things practical effects can't hold a candle to. To me it's most distracting when you see something that had been done masterfully in the past: The Thing monster to the prequel, Alien xenomorph costumes. Sure, both modern renditions do mix some practical effects and costumes, but The Thing prequel ditched some perfectly great completed rigs for a CGI scrub. And oppostise, AVP movies managed to have have fucked camera work that made perfectly great costumes stand out more than the CGI. AVP still sucks, but in a shit situation it made it's CGI get more mileage. Compared to the million low budget monster movies featuring a man in an obvious suit, I'm open to a more fantastic CGI monster. I'm not not a fan of green-screening everything though. Some scenes cal for it, but not the majority of a damn film. When the LOTR films came out, the CGI got better as the sets got worse. Like AVP, it was a show of effort, resources and skill gave you the better results. Then you get the Hobbit movies or John Carter: where both fail due to piss poor production philosophy.

Why not use both?

>>15444039

You see, you fell for it.

Look it up. A surprising amount of Shin is CG. They only use practical effects a couple of times. But they made the CG godzilla look like a rubber suit well enough you didnt notice.

>>15444039
>>15444134
Godzilla is entirely CG in the movie, but his model was made using a high-resolution scan of a suit and his motion was mocaped.

>>15442940
Both should serve to complement each other. Depending of the CGI, it can end looking very cheap or even dated already after a year. Some practical effects aided by digital effects, in things like ilummination, minor details, and so on, can do wonders.

>>15444091
Only underaged toddlers even use the term 'practical' effects. CG is a visual effect, real things on the set are special effects.

>>15442940
It really depends. But generally cg has a lot of advantages that kind of make it beter even when you can notice it's not a model.

The best effects are the ones with the most effort and skill put into them. Between CGI and practical effects, there is no one superior solution. There's just different degrees of competence.

File: str2_gx_0707_6col_p4d.jpg (52KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x413px

Definitely CG. I can't see something like Pacific Rim working at all with practical effects for the mechs or kaiju. Practical effects for everything else, though, like cockpits.

File: Pacific Rim - Boat Sword.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>15442940
depends really

if its involve giant robots then CGI it is

if its capekino like Ironman 1 then costumes and props prefered